Page 4501 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
though quaint, perhaps have a very good basis. Canberrans, under the state of the law at the present time, are prohibited from chiselling more than 91 characters onto their gravestones. To prevent excessive loquaciousness, as you might find on Mr Connolly's gravestone, for example, that kind of prohibition is probably very appropriate.
The backlog of reform that the ACT has encountered with the coming of self-government is a reflection of something I do not think people understand but in fact is the case. There has been a very considerable neglect of the ACT over the last few decades when it comes to the question of updating and reviewing our laws. We had the reputation in other places in Australia of being a lavishly endowed community in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of seeing to the basic rights of Canberrans, the basic capacity of Canberrans to deal with a modern set of laws, regrettably we have not been lavishly dealt with. In fact, we have been neglected.
It was not until 1979 or thereabouts that the Commonwealth Government agreed to appoint a Law Reform Commission for the ACT, chaired by the late Sir Richard Blackburn, who was then Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court. That was the first attempt to deal with the fact that the ACT had received several layers of laws in its development, some of which were quite irrelevant - some imperial laws, some New South Wales laws dating from the time when we were part of New South Wales, some Commonwealth laws, some Commonwealth ordinances in respect of the ACT, and now some ACT Assembly laws. Those five layers of law have necessarily meant that the ACT legislation situation is at best confused. There is great potential for us to rationalise the position, as outlined in the program that has been put forward by the Government.
There are also in this report some references to New South Wales Law Reform Commission initiatives over the last few years which may be of relevance for the ACT. I believe that, as much as possible, we should be examining the implications of those Law Reform Commission recommendations because, quite frankly, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission has been a much more active and a rather more effective body than any that has had the benefit of affecting ACT law.
I am not entirely clear what status the recommendations in this report will have on the consideration of this issue in the Assembly today. Mr Connolly, when presenting the report, said that he wanted to leave this paper on the table for some two months to allow members to study it in detail, and I thank him for that opportunity. He announced:
... I have asked the Law Reform Unit of my department to call for community comments on the proposals set out in the report. Legislative action to implement the report's recommendations will not proceed until after careful consideration of all comments received.
On that basis, I have not addressed individually the recommendations made in this report, although, where the report recommends that certain law reform process outcomes be referred to our present Community Law Reform Committee, I would not disagree with any of those recommendations. There are others that recommend some other form of action, and I am not sure whether the Assembly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .